[Updated at 9:30 p.m. ET] The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, multiple officials told CNN on Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement Thursday and notify Congress of the planned change in policy, the officials said.

"We will eliminate the policy of 'no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,'" a senior defense official said.

The officials cautioned, however, that "not every position will open all at once on Thursday." Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an "assessment phase," in which each branch of service will examine all its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable for integrating them.

The Army and Marine Corps, especially, will be examining physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations within combat units. Every 90 days, the service chiefs will have to report on their progress.

The move will be one of the last significant policy decisions made by Panetta, who is expected to leave in mid-February. It is not clear where former Sen. Chuck Hagel, the nominated replacement, stands, but officials say he has been apprised of Panetta's coming announcement.

"It will take a while to work out the mechanics in some cases. We expect some jobs to open quickly, by the end of this year. Others, like special operations forces and infantry, may take longer," a senior defense official explained. Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women to be integrated as much as possible.

The Pentagon has left itself some wiggle room, however, which may ultimately lead to some jobs being designated as closed to women. A senior defense official said if, after the assessment, a branch finds that "a specific job or unit should not be open, they can go back to the secretary and ask for an exemption to the policy, to designate the job or unit as closed."

The official said the goal remains to open as many jobs as possible. "We should open all specialties to the maximum extent possible to women. We know they can do it."

Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who spent six years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, said he supports lifting the ban on women serving in combat, pointing out women are already serving in harm's way. But he said the move should not fundamentally change the military.

"As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world - particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units," McCain said in a statement.

Thousands of women in the military have already found themselves in combat situations, said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington. Recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan have lacked a real front line, and women serving there have come under fire and had to fight back alongside male counterparts, she said.

Murray, who leads the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and is a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, called Panetta's decision a "historic step for equality" that recognizes the role women play in the military.

The Pentagon must notify Congress of each job or unit as it is sent up to the secretary to be opened to women. Then the Defense Department must wait 30 days while Congress is in session before implementing the change.

It is a marked difference from the way the military ended the exclusion of gays serving openly, or the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In that case, there were no stipulations attached to openly gay service members. There was no staggered approach that integrated openly gay troops into units. It was instead done all at once, across the board.

A senior defense official explained the Pentagon's reasoning behind the different approach: "You're talking about personal choice of behavior versus physical capability. And they were already in the units. If you take a unit that's never had women before, that's quite a culture change."

Another senior defense official said the goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field."

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Defense, charging that combat exclusion is unfair and outdated, harms America's safety and prevents women from receiving training and recognition for their work. The plaintiffs, who include women awarded Purple Hearts, say the exclusion places them at a disadvantage for promotion.

"But we welcome this statement with cautious optimism, as we hope that it will be implemented fairly and quickly so that servicewomen can receive the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts," Ariela Migdal, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, said in the statement.

Earlier this month, the Army opened the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment to women, and it has begun recruiting female pilots and crew chiefs. The Navy has put its first female officers on submarines in the past year, and certain female ground troops have been attached to combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 800 women were wounded in those wars, and at least 130 have died.

soundoff(3,527 Responses)

Former101

As a former soldier in the early 1980's, I would like to add my oberservations about this topic. My MOS was not frontline combat, it was O5C – Radio Teletype Operator. The Army said that this MOS was OK for females, so they allowed them to get the training. However, in practice, we O5C's were required to lift heavy generators, move those generators, and pull-start those generators. While the females were very good at operating the signal equipment, they could not handle the other pieces of equipment that were necessary to keep that signal equipment operating. I remember on several occasions being awakend after a 24-hour shift by one of the female soldiers and asked to come pull-start the generator during switchover.
So while I am sure females could carry and fire rifles, I question if they can carry the necessary amounts of equipment (equally sharing in the load with the men) or if they can throw hand granades as far as the men?
My hope is that the women as tested very carefully before they are allowed into a combat MOS.

This whole thing is BS. Men in Combat arms MOS"S won't have a problem with it because they will be told they don't have a problem with it. Rather we do or don't. Complete BS. IF i had to rely on a woman pulling me out of danger when i got my legs blown off i would have most likely died in that hole. Thank God for my brothers.

Women all across American are jumping up and down with joy today now knowing that they will soon to be included in the draft process. A process that 90% males hate. How many women are going to be excited to leave their children behind while mommy goes to dodge bullets like daddy does. Remember the military is cold on assignment issues, they do not care how it affects you. I think this is good news today for it brings us closer to true equal rights but I hope the excitement comes with a dose of reality for many.

sure we can have our women fight but why? do we need to? i cannot think of one example of a great country sending its women in to battle. shouldnt we want to keep them away from harm? it's not that they cant do it, its that we shouldnt need them to.

I served in the USMC active duty from 2002-2006 in the infantry as a 0331 Machine Gunner. I completed three combat deployments to Iraq and was part of "The Battle for Fallujah" in November of 2004, which is considered one of the bloodiest battles of the entire war on terror. There’s been the argument that women have already been serving in a combat role in Iraq and Afghanistan and have proven themselves in this role over the last 10 plus years. So why can’t they serve in the infantry? Well, Iraq and Afghanistan besides the initial invasions was a counter insurgency operation that didn't typically involve direct assaults on enemy targets or positions. Marine and Army infantry units are the backbone of the US Military along with the Special Forces units that support them, Marine Recon, Army Rangers, Army Delta Force and Navy Seals. These units are essential to national security. Implementing women into these units could produce catastrophic consequences and totally change the dynamic of these units. Implementing women into these units would reduce combat readiness and combat effectiveness for a variety of reasons. The mission of a Marine Corps rifle squad is “to locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat.” Infantry units are not made for occupational wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan but to assault enemy position’s and take them out. So comparing the good job women have done in Iraq and Afghanistan is totally different than the true reason infantry units exist. The prime example of what infantry units are all about is WWII, when Marine and Army infantry units performed their primary functions, which is assaulting fortified enemy positions and taking them out. Women would not be able to perform the same functions as their male counterparts and would risk mission accomplishment by being included in these units and would become liabilities. Standardized fitness tests don’t mean anything in Combat. In Combat it’s your ability to produce consistently over a period of months with little food or sleep, not just in a standardized fitness test that lasts maybe an hour. Women’s bodies are different and break down at a much faster rate than that of a man. Women do not belong in an infantry unit. Specific military units have until January 2016 to make a case for positions they believe should remain closed to women. I fully expect Marine infantry unit commanders to reject any women being allowed into Marine infantry units and the Pentagon to accept their position on this issue. I hope Army infantry units will do the same.

I agree and you make a good point. I have also served (1977-1998). I am sure that some MOS's are currently not suitable for our women Marines, but I also remember (in 1979) when they started making it mandatory for all women Marines to qualify at the rifle range with the M16. They also made changes for women Marines to go on hikes with us and learn more combat training. Many women Marines hated it, but they adjusted. There motto use to be "free a man to fight". That motto went away in the late 70's. I will never forget (on a mission with Gen Colon Powell) when a woman Marine (security assignment) stopped an ambush/kidnapping attempt by providing security as we dashed around the burning vehicle blocking the road. Some women have done well and some will do well. Some fields will open but I am sure that all of them will not.

Dear insecure and infantile men whining about women in combat, you those like you before you have tried to stop women from leaving the house alone, own property, vote, run for office, work, get higher education, to name a few. Do you really not feel even a little bit pathetic by now?

Considering the fact that women are very emotional during combat. (This is due to your women features). This also includes your time of month that can effect their performance. Of course they can do what men can do, but can you really argue that if you are "PMSING" your not going to go in a rampage?

I am a woman and I agree with the men! I grew up on a military base, 16 years of seeing my dad training women and men, and the women were always physically weaker. Certain jobs are for men only. Even the most butch woman cannot compare to a MAN! Get over it women, combat isn't for us!

January 24, 2013 at 1:28 pm |

Sy2502

Dear insecure and infantile men whining about women in combat, you those like you before you have tried to stop women from leaving the house alone, own property, vote, run for office, work, get higher education, and control their reproduction to name a few. Do you really not feel even a little bit pathetic by now?

There is only on question here: Does this change enhance military effectiveness? There is no other relevant issue or question. "Equality of opportunity" is not relevant to questions of the military's role. And the answer is clear that it does not. Even if it does not decrease effectiveness, it certainly doesn't help it and therefore it's not worth the risk.

As a female in the Military I can honestly say this is something we have been waiting for. I agree that we cannot claim "equality" until we are included in the Selective Service act. I do however believe that If standard's for physical and mental readiness are not lowered than there is nothing anyone can say. If I can run as fast, shoot as accurate, lift as much as the guy standing next to me then whats the problem? I see a comment above that mentions relationship's forming. Are you kidding me? That is already happening all the time, every where and think about it, putting women into the situation isnt going to stop two men from having their own relationship and becoming just as distracted. I'm not saying every woman could do it. I'm certainly not saying I myself could do it, but if there are woman who can meet every requirement and match every standard that a man has to match then who are you to say its not right.

I don't think women should be part of the selective service act. The vast majority of women are not physically capable of achieving the physical standards necessary. If a women is strong enough and fast enough, and can meet the current standards, then sure she should be able to serve in combat. However, to require all women to be part of the selective service act is not smart. The fact is that most women aren't capable physically to serve in the military. Again, I must reiterate that if a women is capable, she should be allowed to fight.

January 24, 2013 at 12:56 pm |

some guy

The problem is 1) Pregnancy. 2) Women have testified that they experienced severe hormonal problems where in they were not producing enough female hormones, drastically lost body mass and weight, experienced muscle dystrophy, spinal damage and severe near fatal levels of exhaustion during there attachment to Infantry units. Despite being scoring very high on the PFT scores. U can be a gym rat or a health freak and still not be "conditioned" for labor intensive military roles. Its nature. The idea is not to just endure such extremely difficult situations but to thrive and fight. Which in case of long term deployment has shown that the female body is unable to do. Just like a Man cant have a baby or nurse a child even if he wants too. He cant have 180+ plus degrees of horizontal vision like a woman does. Its just nature.

As a female in the military, you already know the standards are lowered for women. I can appreciate your comment on "if I can run as fast, shoot as accurate, lift as much as the guy...", but the reality is 80% of females wouldn't even graduate BMT if they were held to the same standards as the rest of us.
Maybe the DoD will surprise me, but until they mandate equal standards for both males and females, women have no argument that they should have equal opportunities.

As a former company commander, I can tell you that this would have been one of my biggest headaches. While I agree that those infantrymen are professionals they are also 95% 18-25 year olds. Do I need to extrapolate how it works with males and females in the real world for everyone? While I know there are plenty of women out there that can do the job, is the distraction of 4-7 of them in company worth it? Just because you can doesn't mean you should... The US military has one main purpose in the world. When diplomacy fails, we protect American interest with overwhelming violence of action to 'pursuade' our enemies to see it our way. ANYthing that assists with this is good; anything that detracts from this is bad. I really do hope this ends up being a good thing and not just a feel good thing.

I went through BMT with plenty of female warriors, and I watched the vast majority of them fall into the water on the obstacle course. I'm all for equality, but until the standards are equal, the women won't be.

January 24, 2013 at 1:12 pm |

Gunny

I agree with you. note that I saw some men fall also. It was kinda funny, but I always gave them a chance to redeem themselves the next time. I had men and women helping each other through until they all could get through on there own. It strengthened the unity of the platoon. I miss those days.

January 24, 2013 at 2:41 pm |

JohnC

you obviously haven't met a lot of women athletes. Sure very many women (and men for that matter) can't cut it, but a few can very definitely better many men. And the ones that sign up for this will often be extra motivated as well as capable. It's easy to think of these women in combat as your sisters or girlfriends but these particular women are a cut above that average - there's a wide range of people in this world.

As much as I like to see women equality in professions, I don't agree with it being in the military. We allow changes not for the benefit of our national defense but to become more politically correct. When it comes to putting lives at risk we deserve the best of the best out in the front lines. Not just someone who needs to be attached to a unit just so they can get that ribbon, become promoted ,and move on in their career. For anyone to believe this will generate equality, please inform me when women in the military meet for the same PT standards and commit to selective service as required by men. Then we can talk about equality in the military.

Women should not be in combat!!!!! We are more at risk if getting raped. I think this is a stupid idea! I know a lot of women gonna be upset with my comment. However, America be prepared to hear about American women soldiers getting captured in combat and getting brutally raped .

That has already been happening and still happens. Women are already in harms way without being in the combat fields. Also, we are one of the last big countries that do not allow women to fight on the front lines. All of our adversaries have women (with guns) shooting at our men.

You think that every woman going into combat isn't already aware of her increased chances for rape? If they're willing to take the risk with their own bodies, then whothe hell are you try and stop them?

Each service is different in their ways. All female soldiers know the possibility of what will happen especially if they opt for a "combat-related" MOS. Women who want to do these jobs, good luck and expect some heat cause you will have to prove your worth, that's just how it works. Also, to say that it will increase the possibility of rape....it already happens. Coming from a female, those who want to be out there taking the physical toll to their bodies should go through the same schools as the males to see if they can even handle it. I'm all for this change but i'm not for it when it comes to jeopardizing the safety of the team.

We have 5 daughter's and I say good for the woman who wants to go to combat. I can't evn imagine any of our girls 3 adults and two preschooler serving. While we have did everything possible to encourage to try anything that a male would do...combat? There would have to be a Lee's Nail Shop at ever corner, Bath & Beyond and a MAC store. They would have a hard time making any impulsive decisions because everything would have to a group discussion and decision. Go for girls, mine will be cheering you on from home.

ANY body responsible will be considering it, if they're intellectually honest, which I think you're not being.

January 24, 2013 at 12:18 pm |

wisconsin101

Women where always excluded from the draft. Not anymore. I have really wonder how many or percentage of women are going to be thrilled by this news. Yes they now can earn combat pay if they so choose to but I don't think that is what many women who enlisted thought or wanted to do – combat. I could be wrong

January 24, 2013 at 12:26 pm |

A Nurse

Well, first off there is no draft however, as a liberal, I believe that they should sign up for selective service just as our male counterparts do.

They'l probably open up a new training joint for men to teach them what it's like to carry a rucksack...by carrying the rucksacks of the female infantry. There may be some women emotionally prepared, but how a couple of them are going to carry a rotary cannon and the several belts of .50 ammunition to an MH-60, I don't know. I don't know how they're going to be able to run into the constant fire in some urban area, drop down an M-60 and fire a pelt of ammuntion, then get the heck outta there. I don't know how they're going to be able to run around in an escalating combat situation wearing a hundred or so pounds of gear. If all of them manage to make it but one in combat, then it'll be pretty bad, because that one weak link can blow it all. The same does go for men, but if a woman is lagging behind everybody else, and either gives away the position of a planned ambush by doing so, or exposes the team to the opposition then it will most likely be that person's fault. If a fellow female soldier fails to get to somebody in the unit who needs cover in time, and that person dies it'll be the soldier's fault. All these demands of equality...heh. Guys are guys and gals are gals. There can never be equality, for a very simple reason: the way we are made. If guys and gals should be equal, why do we look, act, react, and think totally differently? Why are our minds stimulated in different ways? For the very same reason that the passing standards on military assessments are lowered for women, they should not be able to enlist: biological strength. If women were equal, there would no need to lower the standard for them...but they're not equal. War has been the business of man for millenia, why should you fix something that isn't broken?

I have known men that could not do many of the tasks that you listed. By the way, Your argument has been voiced before. There was a time when all your reasons were applied towards the integration of African Americans into the military. This is the same. If they want to serve in the combat positions, let them serve. If they can pull the trigger and kill the enemy, I'll take em.

First I want to ask if you are really a GUNNY or just pretending to be one!? Second, if you actually experience combat then you and I know that women will only slow the MARINES down and danger them in every possible way because every MARINE is going to want to protect that female. I support them all the way but saying to give them a try with the units and or especially with grunts will only affect the mission. If your want females in your hummer then let it be but don't put them with the grunts! Thirdly, I have a feeling that you have not experienced the unknown and if its chaotic with men during combat imagine how it will become with women added in the chaos!

January 24, 2013 at 1:07 pm |

Gunny

Although it doesn't really matter, but I will entertain you. I served from September 1977 to 1998. Some men and women have served miserably in my tenure, but they served and I commend them. Also some men and women have served honorably and I commend them. I do not have to prove to anybody my service to my country and I will always speak up for the men and women that have served and (some) died for this great country. You may not agree with my opinion but it still stands. Now you go along and continue disrespecting people just because they do not agree with you. You have that right. I served 20 years to protect people like you. And we're walking!!!

January 24, 2013 at 2:25 pm |

Troll

You're probably just tired of banging all the boys, eh Gunny? Bring in some talent baby!

January 24, 2013 at 1:14 pm |

NAM VET

WHY FIX ANYTHING THAT IS NOT BROKEN-I HAVE YET TO SEE OR READ ANY WOMEN AS HAVING THE POST
SYNDROME, AS MEN HAVE. WE ONCE CALLED IT SHELL SHOCK BY THE WAY. WOMEN HAVE SOMETHING THAT
TRANSENDS THOSE DISORDERS. I MAY BE WRONG BUT WOMEN TAKE PAIN BETTER THAN MOST MEN. -JUST
SAYING.

I TYPE IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE I'M SERIOUS ABOUT MY POST. THIS IS A SERIOUS POST.

January 24, 2013 at 1:17 pm |

Cinman

Only real caution; if you get in a major conflict with high casualties including women, you threaten your society's future by creating a much lower birth rate. It took France over a decade to replace the lost 'man power' from WWI. Imagine if half their casualties were women.

At Alyssa, you only need one man to get many women pregnant. A woman can have one child, but that takes more than 9 months and then a couple more so they can get pregnant again. Your argument is not valid.

January 24, 2013 at 1:05 pm |

Justmyopinion

@An American, while technically, yes it would only take 1 man to get many women pregnant, think about then mating with half siblings. Unfortunately, we need the diversity of many women and many men in a population to ensure no inbreeding and healthy generations in the future. It's a simple concept of genetics... Just saying...

While I will admit that select women may be able to meet the same standards as standard military men, the standard woman can't. I know gender equalists hate to (and refuse to) hear it, but there really are innate differences in the capabilities of men and women. If a woman can perform at the high level required, same level as a man doing the job, by all means let them serve as they will. But no separate bars, you either clear the same bar as your male counterparts or you don't serve in the same position.

"In 2010, a group of U.S. Army physicians studied one brigade combat team deployed to Iraq in 2007."

"Their study, published in the journal Military Medicine, examined the number of soldiers who sustained a disease or noncombat injury. Of 4,122 soldiers (325 women in support roles), 1,324 had a disease or injury that forced them to miss time or be evacuated."

“Females, compared with males, had a significantly increased incident-rate ratio for becoming a [disease or noncombat] casualty,” the doctors found.

Of 47 female soldiers evacuated from the brigade, 35 — or 74 percent — were for “pregnancy-related issues.” Women had more than triple the evacuation rate of men.

“I infer from this that women are twice as likely to suffer non-battle injuries in current specialties,” William Gregor, a professor of social sciences at the Army’s Command and Staff College, told The Times. “They will probably have a greater injury rate in heavy physical occupational specialties and the combat arms. The British experience with gender-free or neutral training standards suggests the injury rate will dramatically increase.”

None of you at CNN know what it's like staring down the barrel of a gun or seeing bullets and bombs explode around you, therefore, you have no place to make an argument in favor of lifting the ban because your thoughts and words hold no merit! Do not tell the military how to conduct business as we do not tell you how to "report" the news or to stop supporting over Obama!

Just don't lower standards.. No double standard for females...There is a reason why there are no females in college or pros in Football/Baseball/hockey/basketball..

If they want to have female infantry units with female standards... just don't f-up the male ones...As many of us on this board will attest, we have seen females in combat over the past 10 years but not in combat arms units..If they can handle the same standards as men then let them...but the numbers will be so few (if any) that it will be a logistical mess.. This is not about fairness...but about standards for a very tough job that most men could not handle.. They will probably have to lower the standards like they did in Sapper school (females have different pt requirements) to allow them to serve... In the end someone will have to pick up their slack on that foot patrol in the mountains of Afghanistan and carry their mortar rounds/ or extra ammo

First of all, there are more women in college in the US than men right now. Just to get that out of the way. Also, combat is different now than in the past. Maybe the average woman can't sword fight as well as a man, but shooting a gun not about strength or agility. If woman, or anyone, is willing to sacrifice her life to serve her country, who do you think you are to criticize that?

Maybe you should read that comment again. The poster said NOTHING about there being no women in college, so your statistic of there being more women enrolled in college than there are men enrolled is idiotic at best. The commenter stated that there were NO FEMALES IN COLLEGE OR PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL.

January 24, 2013 at 12:28 pm |

you're very ignorant

First, his statement is implying that there are no women in major college sports and pro sports. Yes they do have crappy women's leagues, but none of those women would make it in any male league.

Secondly, if you honestly think war these days is all about just pulling a trigger, you're just proving your ignorance. Women, in general, are not as physically gifted as men. There is such a large physical aspect to how war is these days which unless you have been in the military, you will never understand. I know for a fact that if the standards are not lowered for some of the most elite combat arms positions in the military, no women will make it through the qualification courses. So honestly, this news does not bother me.

January 24, 2013 at 12:37 pm |

wisconsin101

First off davy said college and pro "sports" not college education. Second he did not say shooting or carrying a rifle, he said carrying all the gear. Maybe you do not know but those backpacks are 70lbs and you need to carry them for miles in all types of terrain. If women are eager to join combat then few are saying no but are saying that if the #'s are so low, it will be a logistical nightmare having two bathrooms, showers, bunks, etc, etc. in the "combat" zones. What are the unintended consequences of this ruling, I have to wonder how many Hookups & resulting pregnancies are going to occur from the heat of the moment from two incompatible people that would have never gotten together otherwise.

January 24, 2013 at 12:44 pm |

Angela Long

Well .... I'm disappointed in the men on here. These are them same men that represent our country ... attacking women from their own country. How is it we can expect them to protect others, and lift them up- to fight for equality, to fight for democracy, freedom and etc ... when they regard their own women as feeble, lazy and as uneducated or having to lower academic standards... I can't imagine these men being much good – possibly violent, chauvinistic and raping perhaps of females in war zones ... Seeing how they think so little of American women, I can imagine what they think of non American women and the way they value them.

kinda gets lost in the argument, doesn't it!? THAT is what makes this whole liberal social experiment a disgrace.

January 24, 2013 at 12:17 pm |

0313forlife

The only woman I think is lazy is you because I haven't see anything from the military men say anything other than the truth. If you see us as rapists and woman haters, then you are sorely wrong and need to re-examine your views before you rant off your man hating mouth again.

This is just another example of how they have been sissifying the military for the past several years. I have no doubt that women can fight just as effectively as men (historically they actually make the best snipers), but relationships will develop, they will create major distractions and greatly diminish our military's overall combat effectiveness. This will prove to be a force reducer, not a force multiplier.

OK – May we now we assume that women will be required to register for the draft under Proclamation 4771, Registration under the Military Selective Service Act signed into law by President Jimmy Carter? Or will we continue to "demand" equal rights, equal pay, et al, but not expect to have the equally weighty responsibilities associated with these "equal rights?" When I see Congress include women under the Selective Service Act, then I will believe we are "equally responsible" under the law. Until then, women are just "pretending" they are "equal." Taking what they want, when they want it, without assuming as a group the obligations and responsibilities that come with it.

Hey woman know what there getting themselfs into..They are adults and they know what war brings...Let them join if woman want to fight for our county so be it..I think it is an honorable thing for woman to want to fight for our freedom..May GOD bless them.

I have served beside women marines for 20 years and I am glad that they are getting their props as equal warriors. Some women will be a major asset in combat fields and some women choose not to be in those fields. The rule has applied for men forever. Some men aspire to be in a combat field and some men choose other fields. The bottom line is when the dodo hits the fan, we are all warriors and I want every human that can pull the trigger fighting with me. Semper Fi!!!

HOOOAH Gunny! I've personally known quite a few female warriors, LOL... one so dangerous as my ex-girlfriend who served in Iraq in the Army MP... and i too agree if a living breathing human being gender unimportant, is in the same sector and can pull the trigger, i'd rather that human male or female be beside me aiming down range. Hoooah!

JT

January 24, 2013 at 12:05 pm |

Gunny

Added note. My first wife was a Marine. She served in the Gulf War. She died as a result of the Gulf War. She died with honor.

January 24, 2013 at 1:36 pm |

A Major

You are a liar and a retard!

January 24, 2013 at 12:31 pm |

Citizen Twain

That was mature. This is a deflection to the deeper problems facing our country. The government throws out these tid bits for us to chew on so they are not held responsible for fixing our economic woes. Until we fix our economics, we can't afford anymore wars or anything else for that matter. Don't be diverted by this announcement, it is meaningless.

January 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm |

Sean

The people who did this and support it do not realize the danger they put us in. Women may have found themselves in combat situations but that doesn't mean they did well. In 100% of cases I've personally heard about women in SLIGHTLY combat related incidents they have performed sub-standardly/failed to be effective or simply hid from the danger! They create a bigger risk to their male counterparts. Nobody realizes the romantic notion of "equality" does not outweigh the cost of the lives of the women who can NOT do the job but also the cost of the lives of the men endangered by their mere presence. I've been deployed around a few women so I know first-hand that they are unqualified. I am ashamed of this decision and hope it will be reversed before we find out AGAIN that this is a wrong and DANGEROUS course of action! I, nor ANY, of the men I have and do serve with agree with this! God created us differently to function differently and to COMPLEMENT each other!

Do not assume women can't stand and fight! If the will is there she is fully capable if standing up and fighting for her country. Many men have stood up and failed! Not every man in the military can say they can perform the job 100% nor can they say the dont run and hide when there is a job to do. Men have to stop thinking that all women are week. If they prove otherwise and rise to the occasion then what's the problem? Closed minded assumptions!!

My wife is a combat casualty trained corpsmen, who's consistently been in hot zones through out her 12 years of meritorious service...if you served with her perhaps you wouldn't be suffering from that TBI that's left you debilitated and blithering...STFU!!!!

I have also seen a navy corpsman in country, there's no question that they could possibly do the job but when they are being passed around the platoon, the problems started when guys started to get jealous and fight over her.

January 24, 2013 at 12:00 pm |

Not impressed

Sean, I'm calling you out. If you really served, which I doubt, you certainly did not work closely with 'hundreds' of women, all found lacking to your critical standards. You and others have areas to debate, but spreading BS in a poor attempt to back your lies is insulting to those who are serving honorably, and in some cases heroically, in current combat environments. Over 400 women who served for you and the rest of our country will never return home. Some of the better paid jobs come from the mlitary, and women will compete for them. What, did some girl in uniform turn your vast charms down?

I served 6 years as a Ranger and I'll say this much... I have a met a few female soldiers who most likely could have done the job and I believe that there are some who could contribute and possibly excel. I've met many, many more men who could not and ended up in different units or out of the Army. I’m not going to restate the issues below about the rigors of combat, etc. My issue is when lives are on the line who wants to be the guinea pig in that social experiment? Change, especially for the military is hard. I appreciate the fact that the military is taking this slow and will do their best to minimize the impact on these combat units. The price for assimilation of women in combat roles will (at least initially) cost lives as the military adapts to this ‘new’ model. I just hope in the end it’s worth it.

EXCELLENT comments, to bad our govt doesn't listen to a clear headed persons as yourself. I wish people like you ran the show and called the shots, we as a nation would be a hell of a lot better off!!!!

Are Women capable of being in combat? Absolutely. Can women perform as well as men in combat? Absolutely. Do women realize some of the inhumane things that have been done to our war fighters by people that have no regard for human life? What do you think will happen to women when caputred by these same sadistic maniacs?

I served for 10 years in the Marine Corps special operations and infantry I served in 4 different combat zones and received two Combat Action Ribbons and for the last 3 years i have been adjudicating claims for veterans in the VA, the noble notion that men and women are physically capable of doing the same jobs is absolutely absurd. I see the claims submitted by both males and females every day, their bodies physically do not handle the rigors of combat as well as men. If you want to see what the outcome will be by allowing females into more physically demanding roles and the cost to our government just do a study based on the information already available in the VA system, the cost to the American people will be tremendous. All of this to appease a few. It is time that we recognize what everyone already knows, men and women are NOT physically the same. We are talking about the security of our NATION, not some corporate job. All Americans need to write their Congressman and let them know that we need a common sense approach when it comes to National Security not a social experiment.

I served in the Army (MP's) everytime we went to the field the girls would claim it's that time of the month and needed to go back to the barracks and did.....can we put wars on hold to accomodate for this?? I think not.

Women think because they served in combat support units in Iraq and Afghanistan that they have seen real war and that combat units should now be open to them. Wait until we face a disciplined enemy who has a numerical advantage and technological parity. Google "Chosin Reservoir", "Kasserine Pass", or "Ong Thanh".

Better yet, look up "Cherkassy Pocket" to get the German perspective. Imagine no Apaches or A-10s on call, no drones or intel, no medevac, no supplies, no reinforcements, brutal weather, and a numerically superior enemy that wants to annihilate you. A far cry from driving around in a MRAP until you hit an IED or a sniper fires at you, after which you fire 10,000 rounds at the ridgeline and call in an A-10 and Apache strike.

What a POLITICAL bunch of BULL. Women have been in ALL major military actions for over 20 years. Remember the GULF WAR, Major Rhonda Cornum? 229th Attack Helicopter Regiment, then-Major Cornum was aboard a Black Hawk helicopter on a search and rescue mission, looking for a downed F-16 pilot, during the Gulf War.[4] When the helicopter was shot down on February 27, 1991, she suffered two broken arms, a broken finger, a gunshot wound in the back, and other injuries. Then taken Prisoner. Wow that sounds like COMBAT to me.

Actually, even the episode you state, the female pilot was not in a pure COMBAT role; you said yourself that she was in a Blackhawk on a SAR mission, not an attack mission. The change would put a female in the cokpit of an A-10, F-16, F-15, etc. in the attack squadrons. There's a huge difference between getting shot at whilst on a SAR mission from going downtown regularly. I'm all for this; as long as the women can meet the physical requirements, they should serve in any MOS.

So, now it's possible that a future navy seal team could be all-female? If that is a serious notion, how 'bout this: women linemen in the NFL! And should women be drafted too? Maybe, but it will still be a while before they are drafted in the first round....

Because they're a liability. The women in my unit technically "do their job", but only the easy parts. They're conveniently MIA when it's time to load the equipment.

January 24, 2013 at 11:26 am |

Bibi The Puppet Master

Boy . . . .we have done a great job of transforming American society. It used be only the man worked to support his family in the USA, but then we decided to get the mother/wife into the workforce . . . .which led to a whole generation of children with no control . . .who were taught no traditional values. Then we subverted the school system with crappy curriculum and studies . . . then we introduced AIDS, Vietnam, Korea . . . .LOL . . .gayism . . . . in the military, now we're going to put women in combat positions. . . . . boy . . .we're good.

All we do is laugh at you stupid AMericans while we accept your money and drink wine while lounging without any worries.

I was thinking about women in special op units as active operators and not just support. As long as pass the brutal training and do not jeopardize a mission I cannot think of a reason why they cannot become members.

I meant, absolutely correct that it was pushed because of female officers complaining that they were excluded from infantry jobs which have the highest promotion potential. I was not agreeing with that comment about segregating units.

January 24, 2013 at 11:13 am |

ddtrey

Hey...idea...put them all in the same unit and send them to Noth Korea and see what happens. What could we lose?

There is NOTHING about being a women in America that is convenient. It seems that woman are used as pawns in political standoffs and now for war purposes. Most women have no desire to go to war and neither should men. War is a horrible thing.

Infantry is not the only combat MOS and perhaps they will not be deemed appropriate for some roles. Clearly women are not the same as men physically however that does not mean they do not hold value in some combat MOS roles. When this argument flies the first people to pipe up are "infantry grunts" are the first ones to start bashing the concept. We get it, physically you are superior. As an aside I have a daughter who is deploying to Afghanistan in two weeks. She trained at Ft. Drum and was awarded at NTC for her performance, not because she was a woman, but because she was smart, a good problem solver, an excellent marksman and was able to perform physically next to men.

Yes, I was a 'COMMO' guy with the Field Artillery at Battalion level and I can see women doing that job and any other Field Artillery MOS's including 13 Bravo , Cannon Crewmember . Besides who wants to join the Infantry when you can shoot the BIG GUNS ?? .. hooah

So you are basically arguing that if I randomly select 100 men and 100 women most of those women will be physically superior to their male counterparts. Really? Hmmm, that's not been my experience.

January 24, 2013 at 4:18 pm |

0311

QinMA,
Props to your daughter and god speed in Afghan, I have been to some more kinetic areas in the Helmend Province as a grunt. I must say I am highly anti women in combat, and I also support equal opportunity. I am fuming at this decision because intermixing genders within ground combat units will destroy the cohesion and fraternal machine which wins battles. This decision is a social experiment, battles are about killing the enemy with speed and efficiency. Intermixing genders will create a rise in lost American life. I also must highlight there are some men who can't keep up physically, and I am all about abolishing them from war fighting as well.

You're "anti women in combat" and all for "equal opportunity". You just contradicted yourself. Why not apply your last statement equally to men and women. If a GI can't keep up physically (or mentally) they shouldn't be in the combat unit.

January 24, 2013 at 11:18 am |

CanadaGuy420

What would be grossly unfair is if guys that wanted roles other than "infantry grunt" couldn't get them because women had to be placed in those roles first since they weren't allowed to be infantry grunts. While I support women in combat in a general sense, I would not support it if it resulted in women being given priority in roles like artillery to the point where guys that would have wanted those roles get "bumped".

Finally, some equality! Next, I hope they win the fight with the NFL and get some women on those teams. Each team ought to have to start a woman on their offensive and defensive teams without exception. And while they are at it, add some more female sports writers to the mix, especially for the NFL. When I look for an NFL update and find one written by "The Peter King," I always have a good laugh.

For every GI. Jane there are 3 barbie dolls. The question is, how many women are going to sign up, not knowing what they are getting themseleves into, and merely trying to prove a point.... Also, how many ball punching grunts are going to want to listen to a platoon SGT who's a female when in contact.

Let the women have their combat roles. However, now there might be some rules put i place. Such as, husbands and wives (or significant others) cannot be in combat roles at the same time especially if they have dependents. Single parents may not be in combat roles unless there is proof of a strong guardian relationship for the dependent(s) at home.

I hadn't thought of that, but well said. We can't have a situation where kids are orphaned because mom and dad got killed during the same tour of duty. It would also be impractical to have both mom and dad serving overseas at the same time – who would look after the kids? In situations where mom and dad are both in the military their service should be staggered so that one of them is at home at all times, which I assume is already the case?

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if you have dependents or not. Every soldier with dependents, including those that are dual military, are required to have what is called a family care plan. This is a plan that outlines what happens to the child/dependent when one or both parents/guardians are deployed. In my experience, many couples have their children go to a grandparent's home. From what I have seen, every effort is made to have at least one parent stateside, but sometimes both deploy if absolutely necessary.

January 24, 2013 at 11:39 am |

Artifactrix

I believe that's already a standard policy, and has been since women were first permitted to serve in any capacity. "Non-combat" does not mean there's no chance of getting killed.

I never quite understood the desire of white guys to be the only ones that get to die at the front. In WWII there were a few non-white battalions that served with great honor, but most non-white soldiers stayed in the back serving vital (but safer) supply needs. With modern weapons, I don't think physical strength is as important as it was back in the days of shields and swords so provided women receive the same training why not expand the pool of people that gets to die for their country. I am sure there are plenty of guys nominating their ex-wives for that honor right now.

Up to WWII Black Americans were excluded from ground combat roles by military policy. The theory that the Black American Male would not fight or react in combat as effectively as a non-black male IE Asian, Hispanic Caucasian, not as you subtly imply the race card "white guys". Lets be up front, it was racism period. Black American Males fought heroically in the US Civil War. A portrait of a heroic Black American Male is the slave running away from the plantation to join the Union Army and leaving behind family at the mercy of the overseer. Eleanor Roosevelt convinced the War Dept. to begin ending this terrible policy. To the happiness of many "white" men in the trenches the Black American Man proved once again his bravery, honor, Leadership Qualiities and patriotism. Now he deserves the societal rewards for over 2 centuries of fidelity to his country. BTW I am not a liberal by any means contrary to liberal opinion most conservatives feel this way, especially vets..

Not sure if you thought I disagreed with you, but I agree wholeheartedly about black Americans and the contributions they've made in combat over the years. Not allowing them to fill all roles in the military was a stupid policy, and my point is that not allowing women to do the same today when physical strength is rarely decisive in modern warfare is also stupid policy. No doubt most women will be at a disadvantage if it ever comes down to hand-to-hand combat, but it should really never come down to hand-to-hand combat if things are planned out correctly since hand-to-hand combat is a crap shoot no military leader should subject his troops to.

January 24, 2013 at 10:59 am |

coca-kola

You keep hearing of gender equality, gender equality. There will never be a heavyweight boxing champ thats a female, there will never be womens hockey team better than a male hockey team, women will never equal men in strength, never it is impossible. Lets celebrate gender distinction. I shutter at effeminate men as well as tom boys.

I completely agree. Change the name to gender distinction. It sounds more accurate to male and females. There are just some things men can do women can't and vice versa. Women need to shut up and maximize their own natural strengths instead of trying to prove themselves to be as physically equal to men. We are made differently for a reason.

Speak for yourself, Anna. I am female and have been in the Army for almost seven years and I didn't come here to prove anything to anyone. You are, however, welcome for my service, just like the other people in American that look a gift horse in the mouth.

January 24, 2013 at 11:32 am |

CanadaGuy420

I agree with you on the sports analogies. My sister use to ask me why I only watched the men's 100 meters in the Olympics and didn't care about the women's and my reply was that I wanted to see the fastest PERSON in the world and that was always going to be a guy. Same reason I watch men's hockey, the NBA and not the WNBA, etc. I want to see the best PEOPLE in each sport. I remember when Martina Navratilova was by far the best women's tennis player and the press asked her if she thought it was unfair that she couldn't compete with the men, and her honest response was that she couldn't beat anyone ranked in the top 100 on the men's side because of their speed and power. Now the military is something different, if a woman can carry a gun, make it up the hill, etc., then I'm all for sharing the pain on the front lines.

I should clarify that there are minimum physical requirements that must be met. It would be unacceptable to have women in combat (and for that matter smaller and weaker men) who couldn't carry their own gear for long distances, etc as may be required. It would be totally unacceptable for men to have to shoulder an additional burden in combat just so women could get their right to participate. No one should have to put their life at risk for "equality".

January 24, 2013 at 11:02 am |

Jim Bough

By "shutter" do you mean that you are a photographer and like to take their pictures?

If you plot stregth vs number of persons separately for men and women the male cure will be on the stronger side. But there will be much overlap. What this means is that the strongest person in the world (or in the US) will always be a man and a man who is stronger than 50% of men is probably stronger than 60% of women. All this means very little when judged on an individual basis, which is how they should be judged.

I highly doubt your compairing FIT men and woman. I'm about 20lbs overweight; I lift weights infrequently and do cardio not at all, but I'm pretty sure I can dead lift 150 pounds, bench 180, and run three miles in 25 minutes, but I doubt even a woman that trained regularly could overpower me.

January 24, 2013 at 12:18 pm |

single mom

If women can meet the SAME physical standards as the men, then let them serve wherever they qualify. Whatever happens, the standards should NOT be lowered. Before women start the school/training, and certainly before they go into combat, they should sign a waiver stating that they will accept no special treatment for menstruation difficulties, will carry the same equipment/backpack weight as their male contemporaries and understand (which they won't until it happens) what will happen if they are captured.

Women, combat is not playing in the dirt or mud during the day and coming back home to take a shower and put on clean clothes. It's weeks on end in hot deserts, humid jungles or cold mountains. I haven't been, but 90% of those I love have. If you can do it, God bless you and give you strength, but remember – it's not anything like the movie GI Jane.

Your post is the most offensive I've ever read. "Combat is not playing in the dirt"? How dare you offend women who are enlisted and ALREADY facing combat because they are 'attached' to combat units just not OFFICIALLY listed in combat positions. Do you think the 865 women who've already been wounded don't KNOW that combat is not 'playing in the dirt'. Shut up and go back to making sandwiches.

Tethy, you clearly sound like yet another person who does NOT understand what being an infantryman entails. OH, women have been wounded. Wow. That does not prove them fit for an infantryman's job. There is a massive difference between riding around in trucks, or walking alongside the grunts, and actually being one, doing a movement to contact, going out to look for a fight, every single day.

"Oh but they live, sleep, eat with the infantry already". You know what? I can show you a bunch of 40 year old beer bellied school teachers and gas station attendants, who (by virtue of their speaking Arabic) also lived, slept, and patrolled with the grunts. That doesn't make them a good prospect to fill their jobs.

wow, can't respond to tethyrs. How is it offensive to point out hard truths and say it's not a movie?
I'm a veteran, with two sons and a brother currently active duty. I don't want their lives at more risk because of women who couldn't meet the standards. I do not want women put at risk because of lowered standards.

You did get that, right? The part about standards being the same across the board?

January 24, 2013 at 11:17 am |

Not impressed

Over 400 American women soldiers have already died in our most recent wars, many from bombs and bullets. Sir, show some respect! What, they are women, so their contributions don't count! Are their lost lives worth less than their brothers in arms? Women are already exposed to combat, and they already serve and die for this country. And what is this 'forced' to sign up for service. Since Vietnam, the draft was eliminated and it has been a volunteer army. It sounds like you are carrying two shovel loads of hate for half the population.

While your overall points may have some validity, no woman openly seeking a combat role has any misunderstanding of what they are getting themseleves into. It is pretty offensive that you would imply that some women think serving in a combat role equates to "playing in the dirt". If you are a soldier, you understand what you are getting into, man or woman.

What I find really funny about the commenters in this article is that most of them would be beat to @*#&()@&# and then consumed for breakfast by any one of these women signing up for combat duty. Talk about Internet machoism.

It is quite disheartening to see that our society and culture have not evolved to a point where there can be intelligent, rational conversation regarding women serving in combat roles. Let's be clear, women are already serving. I am not going to make the argument that women can do everything a man can do because clearly that is not the case, however both genders have their strengths. It is nice to see that there will be a review of the roles in our military and assessment of best fit for the job. War is war folks, regardless of whether it is a woman or a man serving atrocities will occur. As for the argument against special warfare (including drones and other smart weapons), clearly they are the weapons of the future, more surgical, more cost effective and less collateral damage. And for those of you who are having difficulty wrapping your not totally evolved brains around the concept, take a look at who the people are who are running the companies that bring us the smart weapons that require fewer boots on the ground, yes sir, they are women!

Yes, once a determination of combat appropriate roles are defined, they should be required to register/serve. Although I think most of us would agree that "selective service" should be overhauled.

January 24, 2013 at 10:45 am |

Reggie B

Then let’s move forward with all God's speed. I image our future military force will reflect our future population, thus the majority of our service members will be non-white females and non-white men taking it to the enemy. I hope you will push to have these faces included in the policy positions and corp leadership posts to reflect this future truth. I await your support.

No suprise that you cannot handle conversation that requires use of your brain.

January 24, 2013 at 10:40 am |

kenny

war is MUR DER... when you put a normal person in that position it WILL destroy them... women can play if they want but they will turn into something they won't recognize. MOST men who fight and K I L L can barely manage afterwards. if you wanna test whether YOU can K I L L , get a bb gun and shoot a bird... if you feel nothing.. you can K I L L ... but ... if you FEEL an innate sadness when you watch the life leave a living creature by YOUR HAND ... you cannot K I L L... and if you do... you will not live well afterwards...

Geash, but you must be young. Some do return from the horror of war changed and broken, and others come back and become politicians or start businesses and go on with their lives. These last two wars have certainly affected many families and cost a hell of a lot for the country, but don't compare to the end results of Vietnam, Korea and WW II. No American family was left untouched after these wars, both in casualties and horrific injuries. For generations children would return from these wars and have a common bond with their fathers. It was almost a rite hood for becoming a man. It is only recently where most fathers have NOT served their country. Frankly, women have always backed their men up by serving as well, and often put themselves in harms way, like nursing.

January 24, 2013 at 11:22 am |

Tyler

So your totally evolved brain believes that because a woman runs a company as effectively as men, women are capable of handing combat as effectively as men? Be honest, when the sh!t hits the fan, who would YOU rather be in a foxhole with?

I would rather be in a foxhole with a qualified, dedicated fellow soldier, man or woman, than someone like you who would refuse to fight alongside someone because of gender.

January 24, 2013 at 10:52 am |

Not impressed

WOMEN have already been in combat, even recently, but certainly for a long time. I guess you feel that Israel and Russian women are stronger than the US, and that our military is incapable of training them. The fact is, hundreds of American women have already died from our current wars, and thousands have seen combat. There appear to be a lot of women hating hoo-ahs on this site who feel half the population have no right to speak and should walk two paces behind them. If YOU want respect, you need to go back to your mother and have her teach you some. This isn't a new experiment, and those women who hear the same call as you and physically can meet the challenge and requirements, will do so with honor. Let's hope male soldiers can do the same, without making their women counterparts just another enemy.

In WW2 the soviets had entire combat battalions made of women and they fought as well as men did without ending up raping thousands of German and Polish women like soviet soldiers did in one of the most forgotten war crimes of the 20th century. So provided they have separate combat units I don't see a problem with women in combat roles.

So you want to decide what your daughters or sisters can do for them? You don't want them to decide for themselves? No wonder you are still stuck in the fifties. Grow up, you wimp.

January 24, 2013 at 10:42 am |

Tango

coca-kola, would you like your father, brothers, sons fighting a war? I, personally, would not like anyone fighting a war but when the time comes to fight it would be up to them, both men and women, to decide whether to enlist or not. They will probably grown ups and should decide by themselves. Why making a distinction between men and women? Isn't the immorality your position of making a difference and think that they cannot make a decision by themselves but instead there should be some "high authority" making the decision for them. Like I said, historic events supports the fact that women can fight as well as men. Besides, allowing free willing women to be in combat roles reduces the chances of having unwilling men being drafted because the poll of potential volunteers have now significantly expanded.

January 24, 2013 at 10:45 am |

Nads

If a woman can qualify expert on the M-16A4, lug an M240 plus ammo around, haul/ zero in/ fire a 60 mm mortar, and will sit in a fighting hole with her fellow squad members through all hell and not run, why not ? Semper Fi

I'm beginning to wonder if you're really even a woman, or just another liberal impersonator serving the cause.

January 24, 2013 at 12:09 pm |

some guy

No wonder the afghan national army is sad for the americans to leave. Finally they were going to get a chance to be "embedded" with the american ladies. :) Too bad. " Oh Sgt. lashawna, Oh Sgt Juanita , Oh Capt. Yin and oh Sgt. Betty......"

Thanks but there is no way for me to validate your vast military experience. and whats your first name ? I suspect you are a chick , since you have no sense of humor. And a hot one at that, as hot chicks have no sense of humor and have a boring personality.

January 24, 2013 at 12:29 pm |

USMC 0351

This is liberal BS!!! Yes women are in combat, they are located out on the FOBs, and yes they may do presence patrols with the Infantry units (a 1-2 hour walk down the street). But at no time will they be able to load up with a 100lbs pack (Which includes our basic ammo load, demo, water, food, batteries, mission essential gear, and socks) (Not tampons, not shampoo, not undies/bras), perform a 20-30k movement through the Kunar of Afghanistan, having to endure multiple engagements (Movement to contact), and all doing this while on 30 plus day sustained missions (No heading in for refits to sh!t, shower, or shave legs). The sad part is every one supports this BS but when women can't even conduct physical fitness tests at the same standards as the men, how are they suppose to fight along side of them. If you've never served and I mean in the Infantry, then you have no damn idea. So when the good idea fairy slaps you across the face saying you should support this... Then this is when you need to sign up, volunteer for the Infantry AND THEN DEPLOY AS A GRUNT, then you'll be fully QUALIFIED to defend your argument! The military, especially the Infantry is not a damn social experiment. You know what, if a woman can perform at Ranger standards day in and day out, then cool I have no problem with it. But the moment she calls that time of month, then we hit her with Failure to Train disciplinary actions....

Once again, you have to jump to infantry to even start to have an argument against this. That has nothing to do with the myriad other positions. So though most women MAY not be up to infantry combat I am certain some are.
Point is that gender should not be the decision maker, just ability.

I pass the male PT standards every time I take a PT test, you Marine puke. How about judging on ability rather than gender or is that level of cognition too diffucult for you? Now go continue reading your Jar Head magazine.

Just because you can pass a PFT does not mean that you can preform in combat. Last time I checked PFT only states if you are fit for duty and promotion. See I served as a 0331/machine gunner, and I am willing to bet that no woman could carry the amount of gear that we had to carry. Can you patrol for 7-10 clicks with 100 lbs of gear in the heat of the summer? How about having to do this exact same with one MRE every two or three days? What about if one of your fire team members goes down, can you carry him to a ccp that might be 100-200m away, oh and there is a good chance he is going to weigh 250 or better with his gear on? I have seen Marines who were 150lbs complete this task with ease. There is reason why we do stretcher runs in full gear for 3 miles, or fireman carry sprints for 200m. Could you go on a 25k with a pack and MK-19 or Ma deuce? What about do an ammo resupply 3 miles away with 110 lbs of 50 API-API-t? The infantry is not for women, given the physical demands that are needed. Now on the other hand, arty sure I can see it. Oh yeah by the way APFT is actually pretty easy. Just saying.

Women, should be allowed to be in combat jobs! You can make all the arguments you want to about the abilities of women in combat, the fact is there are many men, that should not be in combat situations let alone in the military. As for the comment about getting raped. What makes you think a man couldn't be raped? What makes you think men dont get emotional? Men like for women to remain week and helpless, but if a women makes the standard, maintains her own and perform like a man then there is NO reason for her to not be allowed to be in combat. I also find it funny when you hear the comments about women being distracting to men. So, with our new military, that allows gays in the military, doesnt that create a distraction? Hmmmm! What your saying is men have no self control.

I agree this is a stupid decision and time will show it. What kind of society puts precious women on the front lines? Next our children. I am certain that there are women who are capable to do the work, but they should only fight after all the men have died. What is left of the masculine role? Can we not even defend our women and children? No, that is somehow regressive, ignorant and intolerant. Men and women are differnt in many ways and both masculine and femine roles are vital to a healthy society. When we diminish or misplace these roles everyone suffers.

What kind of society? The kind that lets women do jobs that they want to do and are qualified to do.

January 24, 2013 at 10:44 am |

Robyn

How do we suffer? You obviously do not understand the passion and will it takes to want to stand up and fight for your country. To protect it and make sure your children and grandchildren have the same freedoms you have enjoyed. Why not a women? Do not assume that a women will not protect her country! She will stand up a protect it should she be asked to our choose to. I AM A WOMEN, I was a soldier, I am a spouse of a soldier and I am a mother of a soldier, I WOULD stand up and stand beside them to protect them and my country.

January 24, 2013 at 10:55 am |

mercjh

Good point, so the new rule is to not prohibit women from service based on gender alone. There is not the coercise rule for men i.e. selective service. Most women in the position to apply for these jobs would be career military folks. Thanks for the feedback.

Sam, doesn't not mean the urges are not there and if they are openly gay, well you point is not valid. Not to mention, that in full combat uniform, no one should be distinguishable.

January 24, 2013 at 10:59 am |

0311

Robyn, thank you for your service and your families service however this is not a EO brief. There are certainly men in uniform that shouldn't be in their assigned MOS's due to lack of physical ability. There are certainly women that are capable of doing some of these jobs– but look at the bigger picture, as a soldier that is what everything is complied for. It is true that objectives of combat forces is to seek and kill enemy forces with ferocity and speed. What makes that machine run? Warrior ethos. What happens when women come into combat units? The fracture of the sacred warrior ethos that men have lived by for millenniums. To mix men and women in infantry roles is a mistake, it will destroy all necessary cohesion to kill the enemy and accomplish the mission in the fastest way possible.

I just don't agree with that, there comes a time when men have allow the warrior ethos to extend out to women whom feel they can contributed. If a women, can prove she is more than capable of performing and adding to the machine, then there should be no reason for men to feel threatened. A true female soldier would place all her focus on that sacred warrior ethos and face combat with speed alongside her fellow soldiers. I agree not every women would be capable of this and if she is smart she will make that self evaluation and not embarrass herself by trying to do something she can not, but if she can I see no reason why she shouldn't. My daughter joined the Army and she went through training to be a computer tech, she did not train to be in the infantry, nor did she request it. She went in knowing she was also training to be a warrior and should she be asked to go to war, she would go with no question. My point here is she was deployed to Afganistan and she endured mortar fire around her post, she carried a military rifle and she packed a 60 plus pack, and she was injuried and she continued until the very end and did not quit, just like a man would do. So, does she not deserve to be recognized for her contribution? Women are being place into combat already, without proper qualifications all the time. Why? Because she is a soldier and that's what soldiers do, no matter what the gender is. So, if there happens to be a women who can meet the same standard as a man and can carry a wounded man while still shooting her weapon, then let her do it.

January 25, 2013 at 5:39 pm |

Robyn

I have stood by many male soldiers that have included me in the sacred warrior ethos, they were not threatened by me nor did they feel that I was a threat to their safety. I was a soldier and I acted like one, I earned there respect and if a women wants to be in combat then, she should have to prove she deserves to be there too and that would require her meeting that standard. I never have been a fan of the EO brief, it's never a issue of equality to me, just a strong will to stand up for her country and all that live in it.

January 25, 2013 at 5:54 pm |

bobbie

CRAZY!!!! So goes the family unit even more. Confusion of roles. U.S., must look like barbarians to the African nations, which include the "Middle East," they claim to help.

There's also women who fly the most advanced fighters ever created. They have flown in combat for years. These women pilots have done very very well and no doubt women will do equally well in ground combat.

I don't understand why woman would even want to serve in a military that does not respect or protect them. Thousands of woman in the military are raped every year and the military and government does nothing to stop it. Mainly they just cover it up.
Until this problem is dealt with, why would we fight with and for a country that make out that it is ok to be happening to us. Wake up, and don't join the military.

For the same reason that blacks (and many other non-whites) served in the military from the Civil War through WW2 and Korea ... Serving a country that treated them as second class citizens? Some of us answered a higher calling, putting service to country above petty actions and beliefs of bigoted citizenry. Too many have never served. Too many take the military for granted. Perhaps this country should go with conscription: every person serves the country in one form or another either immediatly out of High School or after getting a college degree. Wear the uniform before criticizing those of us that have or do.

War should be a last resort. This nation needs to change its thinking. We are so war-based that we are unable to see how it has brought us to our knees economically in the world. China does not have wars and yet they have managed to steal all of our money, our jobs and our resources without firing a bullet. That is because they have learned "The Art Of War", which is find the weakness and exploit it.

January 24, 2013 at 1:28 pm |

Gunny

Tell it like it is!!! Great Post!!!

January 24, 2013 at 2:34 pm |

Robyn

You obviously do not understand the passion and will it takes to want to stand up and fight for your country. What makes you think it's just an issue for women?

I remember being in the field for 2 weeks without a shower, just wetnaps and a canteen with washcloth. If she can accept and handle that at all times, then I have no real issues. I also would like to see an Infantry standard. X number of Pushups/situps and run as opposed to women/men standards.

Each combat role has its own physical requirements which is why they will each be individually evaluated. So many people here try to make the argument against by choosing only the most physically arduous roles in arguing against it. Many women are already successfully serving in roles that they have to step out of when combat ensues for no other reason than gender. That is a ridiculous waste of training and resources in addition to being incredibly disrespectful.

So i guess everyone has forgotten about how the whole country freaked out when the female Army PFC was captured a few years ago. How many elite operators were sent to get her? Would the response have been the same had that been a man?

You watch way too much TV. There are bodies all over Europe, Asia, and the Middle East that prove you wrong. The public outrage over a female hostage was huge! She was hailed a hero. You have no point.

I agree this is a stupid decision and time will show it. What kind of society puts precious women on the front lines? Next our children. I am certain that there are women who are capable to do the work, but they should only fight after all the men have died. What is left of the masculine role? Can we not even defend our women and children? No, that is somehow regressive, ignorant and intolerant. Men and women are differnt in many ways and both masculine and femine roles are vital to a healthy society. When we diminish or misplace these roles everyone suffers.

This decision only going to benefit a few women officers who want to "punch their ticket" in a combat unit so they can be eligible to command a combat brigade or division. You aren't going to see hoardes of enlisted women rushing to get into infantry and armor units.

I even read somewhere that they are going to open Ranger school to women, and that the cadre will only be able to fail a certain percentage of women, and the rest MUST pass. They will be giving away tabs for a few selfish women who are only concerned about their own careers.

Guess what, they have already been able to fill those position. The only thing that has changed is the level at which they can serve. Guess what! They've been doing it for at least the last 10 years already. This is a political buffet and you all are filling your plates. Good job!! My faith in my follow Americans has been further deminished.

Chaplain, Chemical,Communications, Intelligence, Logisitcs/Supply, Medical Medical, Service Personnel, and Physician's Assistant are all Combat Support or Combat Service Support. Field Artillery is not open to women but Air and Missile Defense is. When they say combat role, they mean by opening up Combat MOS's.

Please be advised that most of these Taliban and Al Queda insurgents have seen American films or TV shows like Baywatch. They are all celebrating about this fantastic news coming from the US miltary. They are all waiting out in the battlefields for these Amercan hotties so they can finally make their fantasies a reality, a "cop a feel" on those beautiful luscious American breast!

Women's lib is now complete...but it will never be the same as men. All a woman has to do to leave the battle field is get pregnant, and they use that tactic all the time to get out of duty...served 4 years and witnessed it.

Then those women should have to be held to standard. If your on the front line then you have to accept all limitations, to include getting pregnant. It's shameful that women use that as an excuse to get out. Especially if done on purpose. It gives those women that truly are dedicated a BAD name. There are many things a man can do to get out of combat too, don't assume its only women, were there's a will, there's a way.

So I guess everyone that agrees with putting women in the front line for combat also agree that when all women turn 18 they must sign up for the draft, just like men do. Equal rights, right?

Here is something else to think about. Go down to your local high school and find a girl that is a Senior and about to graduate. Now imagine this person back to back with you with a rifle defending your life. Feel confident? Or the flip side of the analogy is that now, you are taked with defending her life....and yours. Feel confident?

Why do you suppose we have a selective service? If we got rid of it how would we fill the ranks in a war where volunteers weren't enough to fill the ranks? Or do you honestly believe we will never again go to war? If so... why not get rid of the military!

January 24, 2013 at 4:07 pm |

Artifactrix

Frankly, I wouldn't have trusted most of the male high school seniors in my graduating class with a paintball gun, much less a real firearm and my life. One or two particularly mature and competent ones, sure... and one or two mature and competent females as well. The rest of the class, regardless of gender? Heck no.

For those of us that came of age after the 1980s, seeing female firefighters and paramedics has become commonplace. But that wasn't always true. In the 1970s, my sister in law, (then known as Judy Livers – you can Google it) became the first paid female firefighter and first paid female paramedic in the United States. The objections were many: women can't lift the equipment, women can't carry people out of burning buildings, women can't sleep where the men sleep, men won't want to depend on women working next to them to fight the fire. She overcame every obstacle – she showed she could do everything the men did. She retired over 20 years later as Batallion Commander in Arlington Virginia and her uniform hangs in the Virginia Firefighter Museum. Not every woman – nor every man – is suited to every job. Distinction should be made on ability, not gender.

Then let's make that distinction by ability. Right now fitness standards for men and women in the military are very different – it should be all or nothing. Right now in terms of legislation it's much better to be woman having all the freedoms of choosing to join the service without the requirement to sign up for the draft.

Have any of you ever been in the military? Led soldiers in the military? Led soldiers in combat? This isn't a qualifications test... There are women who can do the job, there's no point arguing that I agree. The missing argument here is the impact this change will have on those combat units and the ability of those units to close with and kill the enemy. If you honestly think there will be no negative impact and no distractions from adding women to some of these roles then I question your ability to think rationally and honestly. This isn't a "get over it" kind of change. This is a big deal and done too quickly or improperly will cost lives.

Thats what they said about integrating African Americans into the military.

January 24, 2013 at 2:53 pm |

Andy

Sheila, I agree. As long as women can pass the "same" tests then let them fight. Currently, military fitness tests have different standards for men and women. They should have to pass the same tests for combat MOS's or you will be diminishing their capabilities. There are women out there that can easily pass those tests, but they should be the only ones let in to those roles.

Sheila there is no comparison between a fireman in a fire station and an Infantry squad in the field. There will always be that one woman that can do the job, but it's not the norm where combat arms are concerned. I have overseen details of both men and women while in the military and whenever hard physical work was involved it took almost double the number women to do the same work as it did men. That's not a fantasy that is reality as I experienced it personally.

In Vietnam, the enemy used women as snipers. Women are known to be better shots–or at least that was what I was told by a bunch of big burley CID agents many years ago when they invited me to target practice and I hit the heart area 5 out of 6 times. So the military should use women where they excel. I don’t care how much iron a woman can pump, physically our bodies are different than men in more than a few obvious ways.

The people that are fighting for these equal rights are well beyond the serving age. They are basically throwing the younger generations under the bus, who just might not have the same thoughts they do.

Whoever is fighting for these rights should be made to serve. If they use the excuse, well its for younger people that have voiced a conern to me.. well then bring them in and make them the first ones to fill these roles... crickets will be heard.

January 24, 2013 at 10:28 am |

Bobby

I think it will take us seeing the dead, raped, battered, and beaten body of a female infantry soldier being dragged through the streets of some third world battle zone to realize just how ridiculous this idea is. Do we really want to put our women in direct situations where they are house to house and hand to hand fighting enemies who have no regard for women to begin with?

This, to me, is just another "feel good" left-wing policy looking to gain more political clout than to actually strengthen our military. What a joke!

Like my dad always said. " You wanted it.... YOU GOT IT!" Now deal with it.

January 24, 2013 at 10:10 am |

al

Women serving in the military have been asking for this for a long time. Yes, it will be hard to deal with some of the consequences but it is the right thing to do. Women in the military, especially the army and marines want to be able to achieve the top ranks and without combat availability and experience it simply is not possible.

You sound like it is all partisan when it isn't Maybe you should try looking at it from a non political point of view. Not everyone makes decisions in their lives based on politics. The only people that do that are conservatives who check in with party headquarters on a regular basis to make sure they are not violating some sort of party rule.

Since warfare changed from open field combat against standing armies to anti insurgency against terrorists, women have already been in combat. The only difference is that now they get credit for what they are already doing.

I hate seeing any American soldier being dragged through the streets after being killed- it has nothing to do with gender. And- news flash- men get raped in wartime too...As a female war veteran, I am fully in favor of women serving in combat roles...why not? Women have already been faced with combat situations and women have served as police officers for years- it's not a huge leap. If men have issues with it, that's their hangup. It has nothing to do with whether women will be able to serve competently. Knowing the army as I do, they wouldn't be making the transition if they hadn't fully studied the issue and decided it is doable. Men who shriek about women in combat probably feel their sense of masculinity somehow threatened by the idea.

If a bunch of Celts (far more masculine than 90% of the men today) can follow a woman in combat, there is no reason we can't accept a woman in combat.

January 24, 2013 at 10:23 am |

Log

If you can meet all standards (physical and otherwise) without any special accommodation then fine. However, the combat that the majority of women have been exposed to involved defensive operations. Combat arms soldiers look for the enemy to engage them and kill them. That is not what the majority of women are doing now.

January 24, 2013 at 3:20 pm |

Letinoname

Boibby, in fact, there are more men raped in the military than women. Look it up.

Will women have to shave their heads like men for Infantry training at Benning, or will men who wish to have longer hair at least have the option of putting it in a pony tail like women?

The stuff about men having to have short hair for "gas masks" or to prevent the enemy from puling your hair is a joke. It's a double standard with women being allowed to have longer hair while men are forced to look like concentration camp victims.

As a veteran I feel there are a small percentage of females who could do the job and I do mean a very small percentage. I know many people are going to come on here and comment on this with no knowledge of war or how a combat arms unit works but in order for this to work these things need to happen.

1.) physical testing requirements are the same for everyone.
2.) there should not be separate facilities
3.) any references and regulation regarding gender, thus any potential lawsuits must be stricken.
4.) Any and all media reports must treat everyone the same, no references, stories, spotlights etc.. on women.
5.) Pregnancies are NOT allowed if the unit is in a deployment window, and if the soldier does get pregnant and is unable to deploy they are then discharged from the army honorably if it is warranted.
6.) Force women to enroll in the selected service.

True Larry, and I agree with most of what you say however the largest of issues is how women and men behave together in barracks, exercise, or on missions. Having been in the Army the most offensive actions are when military members act like teenagers when they are assigned in mixed units. This is the most difficult thing with mixed barracks.

i agree with it all but number 5. some women may just get pregnant to avoid the deployment and take an honorable which will pay out benefits. that being said, i would be in favor of an other then honorable, or a general discharge. that way it really encourages the use of protection. people shouldnt be rewarded honorable discharge for early termination unless wounded in action or work place injury.

Larry I served in the military for many years and whenever there are young men and women together there will be inappropriate behavior. I've seen a fair share of careers go down the toilet as a result. It's a natural attraction and it will never change. As for the pregnancy thing... We had a support unit that could not deploy on time because a large number of the females got pregnant right before it was time to deploy. As a result the Army had to pull males from other units to augment that support unit.

What stupid thing will these appointed idiots do next to destroy our military – oh, I know, lets make it ok for males soldiers in unifrom to openly kiss each other. When the military has to conform to bad behavior rather than the soldiers having to conform to strict military code of conduct – we are done as powerful force.

Women should be allowed to serve in combat role or in any job that men are allowed. Women can perform the same military tasks as men. There's another important reason to allow women in combat roles. The all-volunteer military is having recruitment problems. When there was no war, many young people considered military service a viable option. But now that there is possibility you may have to fight & face combat hazard, fewer people want to join the military. The US military needs new recruits and opending all positions to women & gays helps the military find qualified recruits.

So I guess everyone that agrees with putting women in the front line for combat also agree that when all women turn 18 they must sign up for the draft, just like men do. Equal rights, right?

Here is something else to think about. Go down to your local high school and find a girl that is a Senior and about to graduate. Now imagine this person back to back with you with a rifle defending your life. Feel confident? Or the flip side of the analogy is that now, you are taked with defending her life....and yours. Feel confident?

Ok, So how many teenage boys can you apply that too. I certainly wouldn't feel safe with 99% of then either. Lack of common sense, respect, motivation, structure, honor and the list goes on. Think about it!

January 24, 2013 at 3:21 pm |

Michael Means

Can they? Can they hump a 70 lb ruck for 20 miles with a fully loaded rifle? Can they drag a 200 lb, wounded man out of the line of fire. If they can do it, fine, but absolutely NO "gender based requirements".

Our most senior generals are basically political appoiintees and as such will not buck the system. A system that is more concerned with making everyone feel included and good about themselves. In order to please their leadership they will make whatever adjustments to training standards, etc, and in a high intensity conflict people will die as a result but no one will ever put two and two together.

With all that said... There are a lot of very courageous women that serve with great honor, but opening up direct combat roles the purpose of which is to engage, to include physically, the enemy and kill them is not the way to go. Read the description for the 11B Military Occupational Speciality.

January 24, 2013 at 2:56 pm |

N

Sure, in theory women can perform all military tasks, but biology says that men will always be the superior warriors. Germany has had their SF units open to women since 2001, but not one has passed the physical test

1) Women can not perform the same tasks as men. This is already shown by the different physical requirements in place.
2) The military is not having recruitment issues. The military is currently reducing its active duty service members.
3) The war is winding down. The military is not having trouble finding people that want to join, in fact all branches have increased their standards and are turning people away.

Really? You know how the Taliban think b/c you've been intimately involved in their activities? I would imagine the Taliban would be horrified they just got killed by female or gay US soldier. How humiliating for them. While we're at it, dead Taliban bodies should be buried with pigs. Let them enjoy their 72 virgins w/ swine in their heaven.

No wonder the afghan national army is sad for the americans to leave. Finally they were going to get a chance to be "embedded" with the american ladies. :) Too bad. " Oh Sgt. lashawna, Oh Sgt Juanita , Oh Capt. Yin and oh Sgt. Betty......"

A one-time shot is NOT considered combination. Nor does simply shooting a weapon prove she has ANYTHING required to be infantry!

January 24, 2013 at 12:17 pm |

Sean

COMBAT! I have to stop typing so fast in my fury haha. You anger me with your ignorance Sgt Wilson

January 24, 2013 at 12:19 pm |

31stada

Its amazing to me all the women in here popping off at the mouth, having something to say about anything. Sure they want to be considered equal, but want only THEIR opinions to matter. Insulting a combat vet because he doesnt believe what YOU believe or because he doesnt support the same ideas that you do is not only disgusting but its why you arent considered an equal at all.

It's not a matter of insulting a vet, it's a matter of respecting what is being asked and considered. It's that kind of thinking and control that women are dealing with. You are imposing your own opinion and have not witnessed every single women and her own ability to stand her ground in combat. She may surprise you.

That's exactly what I'm afraid of. I served as a grunt in the Marine Corps (0341) so I never really worked directly with females unless they were driving us someplace or maybe at supply or something like that and even with easy P.O.G. jobs like that many of those ladies were on light duty so I can't imagine what it will be like in a infantry unit.

Then if you haven't worked with them, then you don't know how capable WE are.

January 24, 2013 at 10:58 am |

Sean

I know how incapable YOU are because I HAVE seen it!

January 24, 2013 at 12:08 pm |

Gunny

All those women who work in motor T and supply are putting their lives in danger in order to make sure you get where you need to get to and that you have your beans and bullets necessary to take on the enemy. When the convoys are attacked or ambushed, or the supply location is attacked or overrun, what do you prefer the women to do? Run and hide, or stand and fight. Not only do they fight, they contribute to the holding of positions and saving lives by contributing to the fire power of the unit. Some of die and some of them are captured. They are already in the combat zone, so why are we tripping. Many African Americans fought and died on Iwo Jima, but it will be hard to find that in the history books because their official jobs were limited to transportation and supply. I say let them serve in the fields that they can qualify for.

January 24, 2013 at 1:50 pm |

Sean

True story! I think women have a purpose I just don't believe it's in the infantry. Leave us alone idiots who have never served!

I don't know why we are wasting money and time fighting in all these third-world countries.
Except to protect certain financial interests, and I guarantee, none of us little people are making a killing being the "policeman to the world".
Personally, I would rather our brave men AND women protect our country, at home, for once. We have enough crime at home.

As long as they pass the same physical standard, use the same bathrooms, the same showers so special accommodations have to made I'm all for it. A soldier is a soldier once you are out in the field. If a female can hack it, so be it. I had a good deal of respect for the females in the Navy once they figured out I wasn't going to carry that 50 bag of supplies because they batted their eyelashes. They are capable but need to be put in the same units in basic training, those that can cut it will. Those that cannot will quit and will not be a liability.

LOL! Ok I understand you were in the NAVY and all but your understanding of the Marine Corps and Army is slightly warped. I was infantry and served in the Marine Corps, you don't learn all your infantry skills in boot camp so an integrated recruit training isn't really the sole answer here. Boot Camp for me was the easiest thing I did in the Corps (SOI "School of Infantr" was much harder physically)10-15 miles humps with just an M-16, rucksack and other light gear was easy in boot camp even with the hot humid weather in SC in comparison to 30 mile humps out in the fleet with double the weight humped in basic training on my back and than follow that up with a week long field op full of patrols, night shoots, and mortar position digging. Me asking a female Marine in my gun team to carry the 35 lbs mortar tube on top of the other 80 or 90 lbs of other gear she is carrying is much different than asking a female Sailor to lift a 50 lbs bag or something like that. As a 175 lbs male who was benching well over 300 lbs and was in tip top shape endurance wise the daily grind of being a grunt was still a lot of stress on my body. I'm not saying their are no women than can do these things but as a former grunt that knows the ins and outs of that job I know their are going to be some major issues coming from this.

Exactly. I was Army Infantry. Sand Hill is an entirely different world that "basic". They get an 8 week boot with jogging and short marches. 14 weeks minimum in infantry school, and then unit training. The drill sergeants are from regular ole MOS'. Infantry school, the instructors are all Ranger qualified, Spec Ops, Snipers, etc. Completely different.

The draft is a societal decision. combat roles are an internal military decision.
Completely different with no direct relation.

Also note that women already serve in many positions quite well and are then pushed out when it comes to combat. Pilots, naval commanders, etc. There are MANY combat roles that do not include infantry. And some women can match many infantrymen.
It should be on a per person basis, no need to bring in gender.

Partner you obviously don't have a clue. The draft is a societal issue (as you put it) only in so far as we have low intensity conflicts that don't consume massive numbers of human lives. If we ever (hopefully that will never happen again, but it is doubtful) end up in another high intensity war that results in the deaths of droves of our soldiers a volunteer force will not be sufficient to keep up and you will see a draft implemented. It is not by accident that we still have the selective service system. And as for gender neutral politically correct comments... Complete nonsense! In case you haven't noticed there are significant physiological differences between men and women. Yes, once in a while you will run into a real female stud that can keep up with an Infantry soldier, but I assure you that is not the norm. Women are exposed to combat in primarily defensive roles because they have to defend themselves like evey soldier, but are not currentlynassigned to jobs the primary purpose of which is to seek out, close with and kill the enemy. Yes, there is a difference.

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Search Security Clearance

Share this blog

About this blog

CNN's Security Clearance examines national and global security, terrorism and intelligence, as well as the economic, military, political and diplomatic effects of it around the globe, with contributions from CNN's national security team in Washington and CNN journalists around the world.